What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5362943 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord and tenant’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5362943?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362943?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362943?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12718911-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5362943 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord and tenant’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5362943?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362943?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362943?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12718911-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5362943 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord and tenant’s names and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 12pm midday on 12 December 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [A staff member] represented the landlord. The tenant was assisted by a Samoan interpreter, Mr Ama.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under: a. Section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) on the basis that the tenant has threatened to assault agents (staff members) of the landlord; and b. Section 56(1) of the RTA on the basis that the tenant is in breach of his obligations under the tenancy agreement and the RTA by interfering with the peace and comfort of the landlord’s other tenants.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord is a social housing provider. The tenancy property is a unit that is part of an over-65 independent living village. There are 42 units in the village.
The landlord took over this tenancy from Auckland Council in 2017.
The tenant is 80 years of age. He was already living at the property when the landlord took over the tenancy. The landlord was not sure when the tenant had started living at the village but said that they thought the tenant had been there for many years. The tenant could not recall how long he had lived at the village but said that he had been there a very long time.
The landlord said that there have been ongoing difficulties with this tenancy. The landlord produced a timeline detailing multiple concerns and incidents that have occurred during the tenancy since 2021. The timeline records concerns about excessive drinking, lack of family support, and anti-social behaviour.
The landlord has been trying to arrange more suitable accommodation for the tenant, with appropriate support for his needs, for some time. These have included CADS and various Pacific Services. Regrettably it seems that there has been little engagement from the tenant.
The landlord has filed this claim seeking termination of the tenant’s tenancy following an incident that occurred at the village on 9 October 2025.
The landlord explained that two staff members attended at the village on that date to attend to matters at other units. Both staff members have provided statements setting out what occurred. One of the staff members attended at the hearing today to confirm her statement.
In summary, the statements record that: a. When they arrived at the village at approximately 9am they noticed that the tenant was walking towards his unit pushing a shopping trolley containing two boxes of beer; b. At 11.30 am the tenant appeared intoxicated, advanced towards the staff members in a threatening manner, gesturing, yelling and swearing at them while pointing his finger. He then made a fist and threatened to smash the windows of their work vehicle; c. At 12pm the tenant again advanced towards the staff members, yelled at them and stood in front of the car with his arms folded in a threatening manner so that they could not return to the car.
The landlord reported the incident to the Police the next day. The landlord produced a copy of the Police report which includes a summary of the incident. The landlord was not sure if the police have taken any steps in relation to the incident.
The landlord said that the staff members are not currently doing inspections at or attending at the village due to concerns about the tenant’s threatening behaviour. The statements record the staff members concerns for their personal safety.
The landlord said that two residents of the village witnessed the events and that many of the residents are fearful of the tenant and are reluctant to go outside their units.
The details of the incident were described at the hearing. The tenant said that he could not recall the incident.
After considering all of the evidence I am satisfied that the landlord has proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant has threatened to assault the landlord’s staff members.
The landlord is entitled to an order for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c) RTA.
Even if I had not found that the tenant had threatened to assault the landlord’s agents I would have found the landlord entitled to an order for termination under section 56(1) RTA.
Section 56(1) RTA provides that tenants have an obligation not to cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants. See section 40(2)(c) RTA.
The tenant caused interference to the peace of the landlord’s other tenants by behaving as he did on 9 October 2025. The breach is not capable of remedy. The breach is of such a nature and extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy (see section 56(1)(c)). It is not reasonable to expect the other landlord’s other tenants to continue to live in what has obviously been a volatile situation for some time. Possession
The tenant is elderly and clearly requires accommodation with wraparound support. The landlord explained that they are working closely with Age Concern and other agencies to find more appropriate accommodation for the tenant.
The landlord sought a possession date of 12 December 2025 to allow them to arrange for alternative accommodation for the tenant to move to. I have granted possession to the landlord at midday to allow an orderly transition to occur during working hours.
At the hearing the tenant accepted that the tenancy could not continue. He expressed willingness to work with the agencies who can provide support.
This file will now be closed but I reserve leave to the landlord to re-open this matter on or prior to 12 December 2025 if an amendment to the possession date is required. Name suppression
The tenant is an elderly vulnerable person. I do not consider that there is any public interest in the publication of his name and identifying details. I have exercised my discretion to supress publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details (including the landlord’s name and the tenancy address) pursuant to section 95A(4) RTA.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord and tenant’s names and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 12pm midday on 12 December 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [A staff member] represented the landlord. The tenant was assisted by a Samoan interpreter, Mr Ama.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under: a. Section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) on the basis that the tenant has threatened to assault agents (staff members) of the landlord; and b. Section 56(1) of the RTA on the basis that the tenant is in breach of his obligations under the tenancy agreement and the RTA by interfering with the peace and comfort of the landlord’s other tenants.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord is a social housing provider. The tenancy property is a unit that is part of an over-65 independent living village. There are 42 units in the village.
The landlord took over this tenancy from Auckland Council in 2017.
The tenant is 80 years of age. He was already living at the property when the landlord took over the tenancy. The landlord was not sure when the tenant had started living at the village but said that they thought the tenant had been there for many years. The tenant could not recall how long he had lived at the village but said that he had been there a very long time.
The landlord said that there have been ongoing difficulties with this tenancy. The landlord produced a timeline detailing multiple concerns and incidents that have occurred during the tenancy since 2021. The timeline records concerns about excessive drinking, lack of family support, and anti-social behaviour.
The landlord has been trying to arrange more suitable accommodation for the tenant, with appropriate support for his needs, for some time. These have included CADS and various Pacific Services. Regrettably it seems that there has been little engagement from the tenant.
The landlord has filed this claim seeking termination of the tenant’s tenancy following an incident that occurred at the village on 9 October 2025.
The landlord explained that two staff members attended at the village on that date to attend to matters at other units. Both staff members have provided statements setting out what occurred. One of the staff members attended at the hearing today to confirm her statement.
In summary, the statements record that: a. When they arrived at the village at approximately 9am they noticed that the tenant was walking towards his unit pushing a shopping trolley containing two boxes of beer; b. At 11.30 am the tenant appeared intoxicated, advanced towards the staff members in a threatening manner, gesturing, yelling and swearing at them while pointing his finger. He then made a fist and threatened to smash the windows of their work vehicle; c. At 12pm the tenant again advanced towards the staff members, yelled at them and stood in front of the car with his arms folded in a threatening manner so that they could not return to the car.
The landlord reported the incident to the Police the next day. The landlord produced a copy of the Police report which includes a summary of the incident. The landlord was not sure if the police have taken any steps in relation to the incident.
The landlord said that the staff members are not currently doing inspections at or attending at the village due to concerns about the tenant’s threatening behaviour. The statements record the staff members concerns for their personal safety.
The landlord said that two residents of the village witnessed the events and that many of the residents are fearful of the tenant and are reluctant to go outside their units.
The details of the incident were described at the hearing. The tenant said that he could not recall the incident.
After considering all of the evidence I am satisfied that the landlord has proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant has threatened to assault the landlord’s staff members.
The landlord is entitled to an order for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c) RTA.
Even if I had not found that the tenant had threatened to assault the landlord’s agents I would have found the landlord entitled to an order for termination under section 56(1) RTA.
Section 56(1) RTA provides that tenants have an obligation not to cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants. See section 40(2)(c) RTA.
The tenant caused interference to the peace of the landlord’s other tenants by behaving as he did on 9 October 2025. The breach is not capable of remedy. The breach is of such a nature and extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy (see section 56(1)(c)). It is not reasonable to expect the other landlord’s other tenants to continue to live in what has obviously been a volatile situation for some time. Possession
The tenant is elderly and clearly requires accommodation with wraparound support. The landlord explained that they are working closely with Age Concern and other agencies to find more appropriate accommodation for the tenant.
The landlord sought a possession date of 12 December 2025 to allow them to arrange for alternative accommodation for the tenant to move to. I have granted possession to the landlord at midday to allow an orderly transition to occur during working hours.
At the hearing the tenant accepted that the tenancy could not continue. He expressed willingness to work with the agencies who can provide support.
This file will now be closed but I reserve leave to the landlord to re-open this matter on or prior to 12 December 2025 if an amendment to the possession date is required. Name suppression
The tenant is an elderly vulnerable person. I do not consider that there is any public interest in the publication of his name and identifying details. I have exercised my discretion to supress publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details (including the landlord’s name and the tenancy address) pursuant to section 95A(4) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362943 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362943 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions